Chicken!

How Putin and Biden Play the Game

The dynamics of the game of “Chicken!” offer a fascinating lens through which to analyze the behavioural brinkmanship of political figures like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, especially in contrast with the likes of Joe Biden or Donald Trump. In the high-stakes arena of international relations, where issues like territorial disputes, economic competition in the form of trade wars, and military posturing come to the front, these incumbent psychopaths engage in a clumsy jig of strategy, kinesics, and the optics of risk. We are so easily misled, of course, because hardly anything is what it seems, we rely on second-hand information, and the propaganda machine keeps all of us aligned with the official narrative.

Through the lens of some Occidental observers, who have little tolerance for (or appreciation of) non-Western cultures, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping exemplify the most assertive players in this geopolitical game. Both rulers are closely affiliated in terms of the source materials underpinning their respective dogma, and both adopt a direct approach, much like driving straight toward an impending collision, demonstrating a willingness to challenge opponents head-on.

I see things rather differently. I am not lauding the characters of these men. I have not met either of them and know about them only from others. But I appreciate the predictability of both Putin and Xi. If they say they will do something then you can expect them to follow through. Likewise, if they deny making specific plans, it is highly probable that is the case. Sadly, this is not a quality to be found in moden democracies. Instead, obfuscation, disinformation, and outright lies tend to be the order of the day. I am not suggesting these qualities are absent in China and Russia. But they are certainly not as pronounced.

Subtleties of vocabulary and body language can certainly be lost in translation. Perceived ambiguity can lead to hesitation and potential bewilderment on the part of listeners trying to decipher Chinese rhetoric especially. Both Putin and Xi appear to be patient individuals. This arises partly from the fact that their respective political systems put limits on free speech, while in China the strategic horizon for change is measured in decades rather than the next election cycle. In terms of other characteristics, taking what both of these individuals state consistently and repeatedly as bluff or deception is a major mistake.

Western propaganda notwithstanding, Putin’s strategy, particularly evident in the conflict with Ukraine, reflects an undeviating style of altercation. His readiness to escalate tensions, through military maneuvers and hardline rhetoric, almost always in response mode, signals to domestic and international audiences alike that he is not inclined to back down. This tactic is aimed at commanding respect, both at home and internationally, presenting himself as a formidable individual who prioritizes Russian interests over any diplomatic niceties.

Similarly, Xi Jinping has taken emphatic stances in the South China Sea and with regard to Taiwan. The Politburo in Beijing often showcases military strength and asserts territorial claims, reinforcing China’s position as a rising power. This behaviour suggests a readiness to engage in high-risk exercises to assert dominance and deter perceived threats from the West. But listen carefully to what is being said: Xi’s tone is invariably measured; his reactions almost always taken in response to provocation by the West.

When analysing Xi’s speeches what becomes crystal clear is that overt militarism is only a minor part of his and China’s narrative, which overwhelmingly stresses peaceful and productive cooperation with all other nations, including of course the US. We must also remember that over 80% of Chinese and almost 70% of Russians have favourable views of their governments - a statistic that leaves the US, UK and European nations choking with envy in the dust.

In contrast, people like Joe Biden and Donald Trump tend to employ more calculated strategies, akin to swerving in the game of chicken. Their tactics, the result of compromises and conditions imposed from a range of sources, are focused on preserving power through conflicts, tariffs and proxy wars, disguised in part by a pretense at diplomacy, negotiation, and a focus on building coalitions.

While Biden and Trump appear to be non-aligned constitutionally, representing differing views in terms of domestic policies, and coming from different sides of the political spectrum, there is very little substantive difference in their approach to foreign affairs and the exploitation of power. Both are in the pocket of the Israel lobby and the billionaire class. Both hold conservative and religious values. Both believe America is a unique symbol of freedom to the rest of the world. Exceptionalism has differing clothes you see, but they are Siamese twins in terms of their soul.

The evidence for this is clear enough. The foreign policy of Biden, like Obama, Bush and Clinton before him, has been symbolized by an inclination to provide military support for allies, particularly in conflicts such as the situation in Ukraine, and to engage in wars that the US cannot win. While Biden espouses the importance of diplomacy, his administration has also significantly increased military aid and support to NATO and Ukraine. This can be seen as a form of escalation that eschews pure diplomatic engagement. This carrot and stick approach – appearing to promote cooperation in limited doses, while sustaining conflict - creates a narrative of warmongering, especially when military actions are framed as necessary for national security or global stability.

The juxtaposition of diplomatic rhetoric with military actions reflects a broader trend in contemporary politics, where elected officials face the challenge of balancing public expectations for peace and security with the realities of unpredictable global conditions. This can result in a form of confrontational tactics where assertive posturing is used to project strength, while potentially masking deeper insecurities.

It is clear that the actions of people like Biden and Trump contradict the more cooperative image they seek to project. Their strategies can indeed be seen as part of a broader pattern of warmongering where diplomacy is employed as a tool to justify military interventions and support. Recognizing this is crucial for understanding the motivations and implications of their foreign policies, and the potential consequences for international stability and peace.

These differing approaches highlight a fundamental tension, and potential stand-off within international politics. While assertive men like Putin and Xi (and indeed others like Rodrigo Duterte, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Viktor Orban - and even Mark Rutte the new chief of NATO who is possibly the most dangerous man on the planet at this stage) may achieve short-term gains through assertive posturing, they do risk provoking a backlash and escalating conflicts that can lead to broader instability. That might be inconsequential to someone like Xi Jinping, given that his timeline for societal change is so long-term. Conversely, Biden and Trump have proven that they cannot be trusted. Their emphasis on diplomacy and collaboration reflects short-term pragmatism in what seems to be a cunningly conceived fraud: the use of dialogue to achieve compromise and disguise their inherent bellicosity.

In the game of chicken, the ultimate goal is to avoid catastrophe while securing a favourable outcome. The behaviours of these contemporary political figures illustrate the varying strategies employed in navigating complex geopolitical conditions in this first quarter of the 21st century. As the stakes continue to rise, the effectiveness of these tactics will be tested, revealing whether assertiveness or cooperation ultimately leads to stability and progress in the international arena.